User talk:Corgi
Baron Klaus Wulfenbach et al. Very nice! - Acacia 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC) : Ooops! Figures I'd figure it out just as soon as I asked for help. Template picture fixed! : Corgi 07:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Wow! Lots of work put in overnight! --mnenyver 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) : TOLD you. ;) :Corgi 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) You did a lovely Pax Wulfenbachia -- did you mean to make Pax Wulfenbach too? (I love the image you picked for the House symbol. Hee.) --mnenyver 07:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) : I knew I wrote that up! Drat. of how to fix things now It's harder to track stuff without access at home.... : Corgi 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC) :: Fixed! (Have you ever noticed Klaus's reflection is in the tower?) :: Corgi 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Cast List I've been meaning to say- could you possibly not make any more articles copypasted directly from the GG site? It just needs to be rewritten and it gives a false impression of completeness till it is. Thanks. -Acacia 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) : 'False impression of completeness'? It gets some information linked where it can be found, and of course they need to be rewritten. They're very short summaries. But they're a starting place. Hence the stub template, hence the template for appropriate credit. I don't know if any wiki project is ever considered complete, not unless the canon's closed and the creators dead, and even then... look at Tolkein. : Is there some reason this isn't in the Forum instead, as a should we/shouldn't we question, so it can be discussed by all the contributors? : Corgi 08:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC) :: A false impression that that particular subject has been covered, then. And it has already been discussed here. -Acacia 08:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ::: Fine, reasonable argument -- still not in the Forum, though. ::: Corgi 09:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ::::I have started to work on a Manual of Style that will include some stuff about copyright. Check out User:Graybeard/Sandbox and comment on the talk page as it develops. This is something we need to get right. It's still bare bones at this point but should start to have discussable content by this evening. -- that old bearded guy 14:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Sidebars Personally, I just do it the klunky way. The "principled" way is to include the template via a line in the edit, where XXX is the name of the appropriate template. For the character sidebar, I don't even know what XXX is, which is one reason why I settle for the klunky approach. When the Manual of Style is ready, it'll have pointers to things like this, I'm just not there yet. -- that old bearded guy 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC) :Incidentally, that MoS draft on my sandbox page now contains copyable language for the infobox. -- that old bearded guy 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) :: I saw that the other day! Very handy for my finishing up the Wulfenbach students. :) Thank you. :: Corgi 04:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Discussion Elsewhere Sorry, I sometimes have trouble telling how things I say come off outside my own head. Since we've sorted out the question already, and especially since there's a style guide on the way, does just taking that whole entry off the list help? -Acacia 08:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC) : Appreciated. I still think that the discussion itself should be moved to Forums so people could see where the decision came from, as Wooster's page is hardly where anybody would look for style setting. I missed that clean until it was pointed out, because I had no reason to be watching his Talk page. : Corgi 09:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Re: Wild Jägers The one I deleted today was an article named "Categor'ies': Wild Jägers". The real category you created is over here: Category:Wild Jägers :D --mnenyver 01:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) : @blush@ Ummmmm... I plead lack of sleep and overall stress? /sheepish I remember making that category by accident, didn't know how to get rid of it at the time. However, we do have a 'Wild Jägers' red link now.... : Corgi 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) :: Which is for the "Wild Jägers" page in the Main namespace, which was merged with the Jägermonster page. I think I changed most of the redlinks, except the one on the Agatha page, which is going to be rewritten anyway so I didn't bother. :: Hope that clears it up. -Acacia 05:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Categories "Name" and "Redirect" Explain your reasoning behind categorizing REDIRECT pages in "Name" and "Redirect", if you please. "Redirect" would seem to be redundant because of Special:Listredirects, but I'm wondering if you were going for something similar to my "Antidisambiguation" and "Superdisambiguation" concepts. If so, I'll coordinate. — Zarchne 10:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) : I've been adding that category since the first redirects I made (so, days and days, *snicker*); I think I mentioned elsewhere that I didn't realise there was that Special page and I'm kind of missing the intent of Name if someone could explain it. I just thought it'd be easier to find everything with a Category tagged onto it. : Corgi 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Corgis I read something the other day that made me giggle and thought of you. (See comment 35 on this page) --mnenyver: '' As an aside, I once asked the girls at the lab that did the queen’s photos what the pictures were like, and they both burst into giggles and said it was all corgis. Corgis, corgis corgis. God bless you ma’am! '' : WHEE! Well, what else is there to snap other than one's adorable dogs if one is not also photographing one's gorgeous horses? :D : Corgi 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Nice Work I like the picture you added to the article on Agatha. It's a really good illustration, and also helps the visual flow the article a lot. -Evaneyreddeman 18:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC) : Why, thank you bow. Corgi 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Cheyenne, Foglios, and Secret Blueprints Yes, we need articles on lots of the real world stuff. I don't have Secret Blueprints, or I'd get on that. As for the Foglios, they do have fluff in the dead tree versions, but none of it very useful for our purposes. (Unless one wants to mention Kaja's fondness for sherry?) We really need more RL career info, I think. --mnenyver 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC) : Oh, we need both! (I think Debbie still has my dead trees....) :D Corgi 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Just putting Secret Blueprints on your to do list for you, since I think you have this. How much info do you think is okay to include? Maybe do it like the one on The Works? Note to self -- also in published work: we should do Jägershots too. --mnenyver 05:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) : I could do a summary for each page and put it all in one article, that should be fair enough. The Jägershots, though... those were on the DEAD hard drive. :( Corgi 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Anchor points Also, section headers are automatic anchor points. -Acacia 05:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC) : Oh yeah, but that wouldn't do me any good for what I needed this for. :) Corgi 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Geisterdragon photo I assume you mean put the call for it on Forum:Wanted Pictures, right? It's there now. -- GB, anonymously as usual during the daytime, posting as 128.165.144.60 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC) : Exactly! Thanks. *grin* Corgi 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC) the best beasts Haha. Dot schpellingk never made sense to me anyvays! -- mnenyver 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Wulfenbach units Did the problem get resolved? I've been spotty here for the last few weeks, and that's likely to last a bit longer. But I'll have a look. -- that old bearded guy 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Re: Badges I think the answer to the question of the entire sigil is here: http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20041117 and here: http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20041124 in the recent past of the originally referenced page. Quite obviously a bend between three roses. But as to colors, it appears to be rendered all in bronze, so the colors are unknowable. Altgorl 07:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC) : *grin* You meant a fess. -- Corgi 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC) :: OMG! Yes, a fess! I've only been doing this for a couple decades so naturally I would make a Newb mistake - in print! Urgh! Altgorl 07:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ::: Trimaris College of Arms, mostly inactive - you? - Corgi 12:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Why did you remove Undepicted from Captain Patel? Why did you remove Category:Undepicted characters from Captain Patel? The category is for characters not depicted in the Canon, and I don't remember any image of Captain Patel in the canon. All we have a sketch, without even a description of the source of the sketch. Argadi 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) : Because of the description on the category page - have not been depicted, especially not in the canon. There's a picture of him. That's a depiction. I'll add the source to the image, though - sorry I forgot about that. - Corgi 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :: Thanks for the explanation (and identifying the canonical source). (I left answers to your two statements on my talk page.) Argadi 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Couple of notes on new forums Not that I have a whole lot invested in the wiki these days, but... # Is there really a need for a million-billion empty forum pages? The idea is to create them when they're needed. # They don't have the proper code at the top, so they're not going to show in the Page-by-Page forum index. Not that I'd want them to -- then we couldn't see where there were actual discussions going on. # I think a bot would be easier than doing them by hand... :-- mnenyver on as 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC) :: We have a choice - million-billion empty forum pages, or a nearly useless Wanted Pages page. If you can find the Golden Mean for this, I will shower blessings on your head. -- Corgi 00:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :::The correct solution seems to be just repairing the code that caused those unwanted wanted pages in the first place, which I believe is Argadi's area. (I think I remember asking him about this - or someone else did - and he was supposed to fix this.) At any rate, a somewhat broken Wanted Pages is preferable to a bunch of empty pages (and, if each page was fixed, would make that forum index completely useless for current conversations). Personally, I'd just let it go and look for redlinks in articles themselves. --mnenyver 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :::: I know he's taken at least one run at it. -- Corgi 02:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC) ::::: At least two, and I don't know what to do. I don't want to remove the links from the chronology, as it encourages action in this wiki. Argadi 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :::::: back to Wanted Pages with the machete Links to volume pages You are right, volume VIII should have had a link to the summary article. The other chronology pages already had a link like that: in a better position (at the top), but not emphasized enough. (And I don't get veto over changes anywhere.) Thanks for pointing out the volume VIII omission, and that the others weren't obvious enough. Argadi 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) : Waugh! I did miss seeing the others somehow - funny that I grabbed the one Chronology that didn't have it, to use as a sample. Since you have, by far, done the lion's share on the Chronologies, it's only fair that you get to at least express an opinion on changes there. pleasant grin here. Do you like the insert at the top of the table as well as the top-of-the-page-link? I'd be happy to do the legwork. -- Corgi 19:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC) :: Well, it makes sense you went to the most recent one, and it hadn't been updated with a link when a volume was named. (I could make a list of all the steps I went through when the new published volume was announced, but I wouldn't remember the list when Volume IX gets named.) :: I don't see a need to the second link, but feel free to add it if you think it would be useful for readers. If you add it, I suggest doing something other than a major section title—adding a section clutters up the table of contents by adding "1." in front of all the section names. Argadi 21:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ::: Mmm, I didn't mean leaving the second iteration as a link - you're quite right that the link's better up at the top - but as the section title (I was going for text size, I forgot that it would index it like that, but I kinda liked the way the menu looked). However, if you think it's cluttery, I'll refrain, no problem. ::: I'm rather pleased I got the succession templates to work, though, if you can adapt those to any of your purposes. -- Corgi 23:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Geisterdamsel Of course there is such a word as Geisterdamsel. It stands for any Giesterdamen who has only thirty-six hours to live and is rescued by a hero. With your kind permission I would like to put it back. It follows the first principle of having fun with this stuff. As to the other point. Your right. The math (and other things do not work.) Course at the time I added that it seemed like it would. See fuller reply on my talk page. Keep up the good work. Rej Maddog 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) : You may put it back only when and if I see a page in the Category:Fan Terminology|| category defining 'Geisterdamsel' first and linking to that definition. Otherwise I will be a hard-nosed pain-in-the-neck edit warrior about it. I'm being accused of [[Bloodbats|having too much fun with it myself and that's a handful of scientific extrapolation on some background colour; you're making up new German words and jumping to conclusions about signficant story points. I do applaud your enthusiasm, but it needs to fit the style of the articles here as well, find a reasonable compromise. So that's my offer - does it seem fair? -- Corgi 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :: Better than a war with a edit warrior. I can see Lewis Carroll would have a hard time getting Jabberwocky past you. So: Geisterdamsel -- Rej ::Hmm. That was harder to figure out than I thought. Though more strait forward once I did. Make page. Add category. Tell Fan Terminology category how to sort page. Done Rej Maddog 04:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)